Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
such a drastic difference” (Answer, page 4). The examiner
continues that
[i]n view of the teaching of Ahn et al., the specific
depths of each . . . layer would appear to involve
simply obvious experimentation based upon the total
thickness of the metal stencil mask defined, the
stability of the mask when voids are present in both
layers and the specific needs of the item to be
printed.
We agree with the appellants that the teachings found in the
Ahn patent document fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in claim
1. The appellants have recognized a problem that goes
unrecognized in Ahn and is far afield from Ahn’s stated goal of
reducing the abrasive wear on masks. While Ahn is totally silent
as to any specific details of the ratio between the two layers,
in text and drawings, this is a key element of the appellants’
invention which is recited with particularity in the appellants’
claims. From our perspective, the only suggestion for providing
the claimed ratio between the two layers is found in the luxury
accorded one who first viewed the appellants’ disclosure. This,
of course, cannot be the basis for a rejection under Section 103.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007